Let us pray? Supreme Court case could have effect on public meetings in Tuscarawas Valley

Just before the Dover City Council meeting begins, a minister steps forward. Invoking the name of God and Jesus Christ, he asks that all who are present — especially those in leadership roles — receive divine guidance and wisdom. It's not just in Dover; it's a common practice in cities, villages and townships thro...

Comment

By Meghan Millea

Times Reporter

By Meghan Millea

Posted Nov. 10, 2013 at 7:00 AM

By Meghan Millea
Posted Nov. 10, 2013 at 7:00 AM

Court cases related to church and state

For more than 200 years, the United States Supreme Court has contended with constitutional questions surrounding religion and the First Amendment.That amendment's first line state...

» Read more

X

Court cases related to church and state

For more than 200 years, the United States Supreme Court has contended with constitutional questions surrounding religion and the First Amendment.

That amendment's first line states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Different interpretations of that sentence have prompted many court cases over the past 60 years. The latest to reach the Supreme Court is The Town of Greece v. Galloway, regarding prayer before legislative meetings.

To answer the question of how prayers should be conducted, the court has referred to previous cases. As this case has proceeded through the appeals court system, there are a few major court cases frequently being referred to.

• Lemon v. Kurtzman: The state of Rhode Island was providing salary supplements for teachers in private religious schools. The Supreme Court ruled that giving religious institutions funding gave the appearance of the state endorsing a religion. There also was a companion case in 1971, County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter.

Tuscarawas County Assistant Prosecutor Amanda Miller explained that the Supreme Court created what is called the endorsement test, which essentially asks whether a reasonable, ordinary citizen would view the government's actions as favoring or disfavoring certain beliefs.

• Marsh v Chambers: In 1983, a citizen in Nebraska challenged the state legislature over paying a stipend to a chaplain to open legislative sessions with a prayer. The ruling upheld legislative prayer as being acceptable and constitutional. The ruling didn't ask whether the prayer was aimed at one particular religious belief or not, so long as it didn't exploit or disparage a particular belief system.

• The Town of Greece v. Galloway: The two women who filed the lawsuit, Linda Stephen and Susan Galloway, are not arguing whether prayer is permitted before legislative meetings, but they contend that prayer should not establish a particular religious faith. In essence, prayer is fine if it doesn't endorse any one faith. Key issues are: how can prayer please everyone; and if justices prohibit certain prayers, would that hurt the free exercise of religion?

Just before the Dover City Council meeting begins, a minister steps forward. Invoking the name of God and Jesus Christ, he asks that all who are present — especially those in leadership roles — receive divine guidance and wisdom. It's not just in Dover; it's a common practice in cities, villages and townships throughout Tuscarawas County.

But that practice may be altered, if not done away with, depending on how the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court rule in the case of The Town of Greece v. Galloway. The case involves a scenario similar to meetings in Tuscarawas County.

Prayers, usually Christian-based, marked the start of each meeting in Greece, near Rochester, N.Y. However, that practice was challenged by two women of different faith traditions who attended the meetings for various business ventures. In their lawsuit, Linda Stephen and Susan Galloway said they felt coerced into joining the prayers. Stephen and Galloway said they feared that if they didn't join in the prayer, council members might retaliate against them.

Now, the Supreme Court justices are looking to interpret the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

HOW SHALL WE PRAY?

"The argument is almost the question of not can we pray, but how are we allowed to pray," explained Amanda Miller, an assistant prosecutor with the Tuscarawas County Prosecutor's office.

She said that's an issue the justices are grappling with, because the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing a religion. However, the nation's founding fathers who wrote the First Amendment also began their sessions with a prayer reflective of their own beliefs.

Miller said the attorneys for Stephen and Galloway haven't argued that prayer should be banned altogether, but rather that prayers should be nonsectarian, or not affiliated with a religious faith.

She said the justices were interested in the argument, and that Justice Samuel Alito asked for an example of a prayer that would satisfy all religions, denominations and atheists.

"The question wasn't really answered," she said.

A solution may not be easy, said Mark Perlaky, a private attorney who also works with the Tuscarawas County Public Defender's office.

Perlaky said the Supreme Court seems to be split. He said three of the judges favor allowing prayers to continue as they are, in keeping with the tradition of the founding fathers and their own traditions. Three of the judges have brought up the idea of disallowing prayer all together, as it seems there isn't a way to pray without endorsing a religion or offending some people. Perlaky said the other three, including Chief Justice John Roberts, are speaking about a middle-ground approach, though they aren't sure what that would be.

Page 2 of 3 - RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT

No matter what happens, Miller said, Americans are bound to feel passionately about the outcome. "I think it strikes at the foundation of all Americans," she said. "Regardless of which side you fall on, both sides can trace the history of their argument to the founding fathers."

That's exactly what Tuscarawas County Commissioner Chris Abbuhl does, when he and the other commissioners recite The Lord's Prayer before each meeting in the County Office Building in New Philadelphia.

"This started with the founding fathers, who prayed before their meetings," Abbuhl said. He pointed to many documents that mention God, including, "It's on our money."

The subject of prayer isn't a partisan one, either. Abbuhl is a Democrat whose beliefs are shared by President Barack Obama, who sent a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that invoking a Christian God before a meeting isn't the same thing as establishing a religion because it isn't forcing people to agree with it.

Kerry Metzger, another commissioner, is a Republican who has served at several levels as an elected official, including the state legislature.

"We don't have all the answers," Metzger said. "Sometimes it's helpful to pray for divine guidance and wisdom."

A MATTER OF INTENT

Their sentiments are shared by Ryan Styer, the Tuscarawas County prosecutor.

"The idea behind the Establishment Clause in part was to keep the government from requiring any type of loyalty or tax support of a national church, such as the Church of England in that day," he said.

"The argument seems to me comes down to what is the intent," Styer said.

Styer argues that government is not allowed to get involved in religion. He said that doesn't mean religion, like other philosophies, can't influence government. He said the most powerful argument is that Congress has been praying before meetings since Ben Franklin asked to do so at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

But that may not take into consideration the changing population, Perlaky argues. Perlaky said to look at the matter objectively, he has to consider changes that have taken place since 1787.

He said the American population now is much more diverse, with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists as well as Christians.

"We've got this melting-pot culture now, and it's important we draw the line or know what the lines are," he said.

That's not to say he has made up his mind one way or the other. Perlaky said that many government officials and their constituents would feel that prohibiting Christian or deity-specific prayer would infringe on their right to practice their faith freely.

"People are often defined by their moral codes, which often comes from their belief system," Perlaky said.

Page 3 of 3 - And living in a representative democracy, he said, can mean for many people, having representatives in government that demonstrate that belief in ways such as offering prayer before meetings.

The Supreme Court will take a while to make a ruling, but assistant prosecutor Miller believes it's one that people should pay attention to. She said this isn't the first time the court has reviewed the role of religion in government, and as the population changes, it won't be the last.

"People are so passionate about this case because it involves one of our basic freedoms," she said.

She said it will continue to be a battle in the courts and in cultural settings.

"It's unavoidable."

Information from The Pew Research and Public Life Project was used for background inn this story.